[CQ-Contest] Re : Log Analysis.

[brian coyne]

>>I can think of at least one scenario in which this could happen which >>would be perfectly consistent with the rules.  There are probably more.

>>Doug Smith W9WI

Thanks Doug and others. I did not say that this was illegal, perhaps my post implied it as I had a couple of offlist mails which assured me that there would be only one transmitted signal at any given moment. I have no problem accepting that as fact.

I am way behind the game. My understanding was that the 2nd station was for finding and working mlt's, my simple mind never envisaged the 2nd station could be used for s&p on the same band as the running station, nor I doubt did the Committee when they drew up the rules.

Technology (and enterprise) has moved on into realms way beyond the intention of the rules, or as some of us will say the 'spirit' of the rules.
We cannot blame the individual groups, peer pressure requires that they compete and innovate. I have (offboard) been charged with wanting to return to the 'stone age' with my suggestion of one transceiver and one receiver, I prefer to look upon it as a return to basics, to follow the rules as they were intended. What guys fail to realise is that it would be a level playingfield decided by operator skills on the day and not some bright new gizmo/brainwave hatched in the workshop. 

Creativity is to be encouraged, we applaud Committee's efforts to accommodate new ideas, methods and technology and that is where some of these entries belong rather than pushing the boundaries of a section which should, prima facie, be simple and straightforward.

73  Brian  5B4AIZ  (C4Z).